Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS USM or Sigma 70-200 OS

kwik · Jun 14, 2011

Ok so I'm getting ready to purchase a new lens. Either the Canon or the Sigma. Both 70-200mm. Both f2.8. Both IS (or OS).

Now my question is do you think it's worth getting the Canon or is the Sigma just as good of a lens. Would I notice a difference in the shots?

What I wanna know is has anyone here actually compared the two, yes i have read reviews but I still want to know what your personal touch is. It's sometimes nicer to read what someone else has to say on here rather then a review.

Anyway I just thought I'd ask a few questions.

Sigma
Sigma launches stabilized 70-200mm F2.8 telezoom: Digital Photography Review

Canon
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens Review

Anyway. Let me know!! Thanks

analog.universe · Jun 14, 2011

+1

I'm also considering that particular Sigma and would love to hear from anyone who's got one!

TiCoyote · Jun 15, 2011

Kind of depends what you need it for. I got burned with a 3rd party lens in the past, but I know many pros who use them and love them.

Big Mike · Jun 15, 2011

Fixed the Title for you...as much as it would be awesome...it's F2.8, not F2.0.

Firstly, are we talking about the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS version I or version II? The II version came out last year and is a nice improvement over the older version (which was still a pretty good lens). This is especially true on the high density sensors on the newer DSLR cameras. Of course, the new version came out with a price tag about $800 more than the old version.

I haven't compared the Canon to the Sigma directly, but I'd assume that it's similar to most comparisons between top of the line Canon/Nikon and top of the line Sigma/Tamron etc.
The Canon/Nikon is usually better (build quality, image quality) but more expensive. It may only be 10-15% better...but twice the price. So you need to ask yourself if double the cost is worth it to you. To many people, the extra cost just isn't worth the small gain in quality...but for many others, they need (or want) every bit of quality they can get and so it's worth the extra cost to them.

Top Canon/Nikon lenses tend to hold their value better than '3rd party' lenses, which may be a consideration.

kwik · Jun 20, 2011

haha thanks for fixing the title. my mistake. stupid fingers.

anyway yes I would be going with the version II.

I like how you stated that it may be only 10-15% better in image quality. but twice the price. This is a lense that will be with me pretty much for as long as I can imagine. So yes I do think it's worth it. I do want the best quality I can get for the time and budget I am running on. That being said I think the Canon will be the lense I probably go with.

Thanks for the words Mike. Appreciated a lot!